Listen First Research Project: Findings
24th November 2008
Introduction
This report sets out the main findings and key implications of Concern and Mango’s Listen First
project. The aim of the project was to research practical ways of managing downward accountability,
on a systematic basis, across different country programmes.
The research proposal (January 2007) set the goal of developing “quality standards for accountability
to beneficiaries” and “organisational tools and management systems to implement them across
Concern”. This built on previous research carried out by the same research team from early 2006,
which is also included in this report. The research project was led by Robyn Wilford, Concern, and
Alex Jacobs, Mango. It ran for two and a half years up until mid 2008, involving over 530 people, field
work in six different country programmes and academic research. It particularly benefited from the
involvement of people in communities where Concern works, and the active engagement of staff
across Concern and recognised experts in the field.
The project team continuously reviewed its work against the principles that underlie downward
accountability, including the ethics of working with local communities and field staff. The work was
also adapted as we deepened our understanding of how downward accountability works in practice.
What is Downward Accountability?
“Downward accountability” is a set of processes which an NGO can use to release decision-making
power to the organisations and people that it aims to help, so that they can have more influence
over the NGO’s decisions which affect them (such as the design and implementation of programme
activities). In practical terms this means building a respectful and collaborative relationship between
an NGO and local organisations and people, based on open dialogue, which bridges the inherent
power difference between them. It is closely associated with the concept of empowerment, and the
rights-based agenda of encouraging citizens to hold governments and other duty-bearers to account.
It is widely seen as one of the foundation stones of effective NGO work.
The term ‘downward accountability’ is commonly used in the sector. ‘Downward’ refers to the
direction that accountability flows from those with more power to those with less. However, there is
a risk that the term suggests that local partners / intended beneficiaries are inferior to NGOs.
The Listen First Approach
During the project, the research team worked with Concern staff to develop a set of processes and
tools for managing downward accountability, with the working name of “Listen First”. Listen First
evolved as it was trialled in different field locations, from a checklist to a set of three carefully
structured processes:

Workshops for staff to reflect on and assess current levels of downward accountability, and
identify improvements relevant to their specific context;
A collaboration by Concern and Mango
Page 1


Research into local communities’ perceptions of the level of downward accountability
actually achieved and how useful they find Concern’s work (disaggregated by gender);
Reports for managers to understand the levels of downward accountability actually achieved
across different locations.
These processes are all built around the one-side long “Listen First framework”. The framework sets
out flexible performance standards for downward accountability across four general principles. This
establishes a common set of expectations about what ‘downward accountability’ means. It guides
staff about how to put each principle into practice, while also allowing a consistent management
approach and useful summary comparisons to be made across different locations. The framework is
directly compatible with HAP’s 2007 Standard.
Findings
1. Concern staff in different countries found the Listen First approach to be useful and relevant
for discussing how to manage downward accountability. They used it to generate rich
qualitative discussions of their current performance in this area, including constraints they
faced and opportunities for improvements, as well as quantified self-assessments of actual
performance levels. As the Listen First approach developed during the research, staff found
it more useful and engaged with it energetically, finding it relevant to the daily issues they
face. The approach worked in a number of different languages and cultures.
2. Standardised or externally designed mechanisms for downward accountability did not work
when they were applied without careful consideration. There were always local complexities
and differences between contexts (such as local politics and specific aspects of the
relationships between field staff, local communities and other powerful actors). Vulnerable
and marginalised people were sometimes excluded, which reinforced inequalities (for
instance in poorly facilitated community meetings). Local staff and managers needed time
and space to reflect carefully on current practices and how to apply the general principles of
downward accountability to their specific context.
3. The way that the ideas and tools were introduced was important for generating
engagement, reflection and learning among staff and managers. We had to create nonthreatening opportunities for reflection which were relevant to staff. (This approach was
also coherent with the key Listen First principles of supporting people’s own efforts and not
making decisions for them.) Power dynamics risked distorting reflection, and learning at all
stages. This was true for the research process (at all levels) as well as Concern’s field work.
Facilitation skills proved critical. Staff generally did not have strong facilitation skills.
4. The same processes of reflection were successfully carried out with partners. This required
careful facilitation. They were sometimes in opposition to more directive / inflexible /
‘donor-recipient’ approaches to handling relationships with partners. Concern staff were
more comfortable considering partners’ downward accountability than their own. The
relationships seen during the research between Concern and its partners were not generally
characterised by the Listen First principles. This may have undermined Concern’s ability to
pursue this agenda with its partners; and partners’ abilities to pursue it themselves.
5. Managers did not prioritise downward accountability. Downward accountability was
sometimes in active opposition to other priorities (like centralised programme themes and
budgetary approval, and less reflective activities). When individual members of staff were
enthusiastic, the progress they could make was limited due to lack of management support.
A collaboration by Concern and Mango
Page 2
Managers had little incentive to prioritise downward accountability, and were not held to
account for performance in this area. The management support available to field staff was
highly variable between field locations, with influential field managers setting their own
priorities. Reports of performance in this area were not always reliable.
6. The research generated credible qualitative and quantified data from intended beneficiaries,
disaggregated by gender, presenting their views of the current levels of downward
accountability actually achieved, and how useful they found Concern’s work. This data was
structured using the same Listen First framework, which facilitated reporting and allowed
direct comparison with staff’s self-assessments. The community research had to be carefully
planned, in relation to the local context, for instance considering: methodologies, ethics,
sampling, research skills and logistics. Local people engaged energetically with the research,
appearing to appreciate being asked their opinions.
7. There was a lot of scope to improve downward accountability in all field work seen during
this research. The primary factor in achieving this appeared to be the quality of management
direction and support available to field staff. This was needed to help field staff navigate the
many competing priorities they face, as well as to create space for reflection and
opportunities to try new approaches in practice. It applied to both Concern staff and partner
staff alike. The tools and approaches developed through this research could only support
effective management, not substitute for it.
8. Very few reliable case studies of NGOs’ experiences of downward accountability were
publicly available in the literature and on-line, with enough detail to understand the
dynamics of how processes had played out at the local level. There were also very few
examples of NGOs developing systematic approaches to managing downward
accountability.
Quantification
The use of quantified summaries of performance created sharp differences of opinion among the
advisors and researchers in the project. Some saw these summaries as important for reporting
performance in a summarised and comparable way across projects. They argued that this was
necessary for senior managers, so they could manage the levels of downward accountability actually
achieved. Other people were concerned that quantified findings would be taken out of context by
senior decision-makers and this would create incentives to inflate scores which would undermine
reflection and learning processes at field level. There was a real danger that this could reduce the
system to unhelpful bureaucracy. However, some field staff specifically reported that they liked the
quantified findings, as they allowed them to see how well they were doing in this area.
As a result, the research erred on the side of caution, reducing the emphasis on considering
quantified results throughout the research. Looking forwards, it may be useful to consider whether
the potential for distortion and bias in Listen First could be less than the bias in other management
systems, and how it could be kept to an acceptable level.
Implications
The findings above have significant implications for managing downward accountability.
A collaboration by Concern and Mango
Page 3
1. Listen First could form the basis of a draft system to manage downward accountability
across different field offices in both development and emergency programmes. It could
provide a consistent way of monitoring performance and community satisfaction in a way
that generates comparable, credible data for managers at different levels.
2. The key factors in improving downward accountability across the organisation, in both
development and emergencies programmes, appear to be: (a) the quality of local leadership,
management and support available to field staff, (b) the attitudes of front line staff to: the
importance of downward accountability, releasing power to local people and partners, and
helping local people build their self-confidence.
3. Managers could support staff to develop these attitudes by providing staff with structured
opportunities to reflect on how to strengthen downward accountability in their work, and by
modelling the attitudes and behaviours they aim to promote. Managers cannot instruct staff
to change their attitudes. Front line staff could carry out the same processes with local
partners and community groups. Managers and field staff would need to develop excellent
facilitation skills to support these processes of analysis, confidence building and reflection.
4. A strong starting point for improving downward accountability may be to help key field
managers (particularly Country Directors) to consider: what downward accountability means
for them, how they can promote it and its implications for their relationships with staff.
Managers would also have to be consistently held to account for their actual performance in
this area, if they are to continue to prioritise in among the many different issues vying for
their attention. (Points 6 and 8 below suggest two approaches to this.)
5. The organisation may have to reconsider the relationships between head office and field
programmes, and field programmes and partners, in the same light. Do these relationships
actively model and reward downward accountability, or do senior managers give higher
priority to other behaviours and issues in reality? For instance, more powerful decision
makers may be able to model accountable behaviour by actively listening to less powerful
people and involving them in making all key decisions. At the same time, management
agendas may have to be reviewed to create the space and time for downward
accountability, for instance by providing clear guidance for busy managers on how to
prioritise competing demands on their time.
6. The data from staff self-assessments and community research could be used by staff and
managers to compare different points of view (to drive learning and enhance understanding)
as well as to understand current performance, identify improvements and monitor progress.
Comparing quantified results from different respondents or projects could provide robust
data and rich insights for further discussion.
7. There is significant scope to continue developing the Listen First approach. A number of
areas need further research including the following, among others:
 Understanding the issue of representation within local communities – i.e. who is
speaking on whose behalf, and with what legitimacy – and making this more explicit
within Listen First’s analysis of downward accountability.
 Performance reporting and analysis could potentially be improved by using finer-grained
scales (e.g. a scale of 1 – 10 rather than 1 – 4, particularly for community research).
 Different methods may improve community research and staff self-assessment, for
instance by using a wider variety of participatory and reflective techniques. It may be
useful to look at perceptions of trends and changes over time, either reported
retrospectively or monitored over time.
A collaboration by Concern and Mango
Page 4


Understanding whether stronger relationships generate more critical feedback from
communities (or partners), because people feel more free to be honest. Weaker
relationships may be more distorted by power dynamics, so people only feel able to
make positive comments about decision makers.
Understanding the relationship between reporting quantified summaries of
performance and the quality of reflection and learning processes at field level; and also
the implications of repeating Listen First processes with the same individuals over time.
8. It may be most appropriate to report only the feedback from communities back to
managers, rather than also reporting staff’s self-assessments. This could help limit the
distorting influence of upward reporting on staff’s reflection processes. In the same way care
would be continually needed to ensure that research processes into communities’
perceptions are ethical and reliable – for instance, limiting the chance that data are distorted
by facilitators or that negative feedback could have harmful repercussions for local people.
9.
It is likely that the Listen First approach may benefit from some form of verification or audit
system, to provide assurance on the quality of reflection, assessment and community
research processes.
General policies
This research provides evidence that effective downward accountability depends primarily on local
staff making high quality judgements about how to apply the four general principles to their specific
circumstances. Implementation has to be context specific.
The research (including the literature review) also suggests that some general policies can be applied
across most projects in most circumstances to help enhance accountability. They create an enabling
environment, encouraging staff to develop effective accountability practices.
They include areas such as: an open information policy, at all levels, based on the presumption of
disclosure; informing partners and intended beneficiaries about contact details, project plans and
their rights in relation to Concern (and partners); focusing staff attention on building dialogue and
trust with partners and local people (including the poorest and most excluded people) at all stages of
the project cycle; paying careful management attention to the quality of dialogue and participatory
processes; paying careful management attention to values and attitudes in Human Resources
processes, including staff recruitment; holding regular reviews with all stakeholders in all projects
(perhaps every six to twelve months), and allowing budgetary flexibility to make changes as a result;
ensuring that all projects and partners collect systematic and regular feedback from intended
beneficiaries, and field offices collect regular feedback from partners.
A collaboration by Concern and Mango
Page 5